How would you rank the films?


I thought the first one (1974) was by far the best. It had a Lynch feeling to it and an amazing cinematography. I gave it a 10/10. The other two got 8 from me. Both great but not as great as the first one, IMO.


- No animal was hurt during the making of this burger -

reply

I would say 1983 was the best, then 1974, 1980 was a bit boring in parts. The only thing that stood out for me in 1980 was Sean Harris' performance as Sergeant Bob Craven. However, after just finishing the books, I would say 1977 was my favourite and it was the one they didn't make, which is a shame.

reply

The first two were very good (albeit depressing). The third was by far the weakest, satisfying only so far in that some measure of justice seemed to be served. "1983" lacked the singularly focused POV of the first two segments. I can almost imagine the writer and producers saying among themselves, "What noir convention haven't we thrown in yet? How about a medium?"

As a whole, "Red Riding" strikes me as a cross between "Chiefs" and film noir, somewhat collapsing in the third part.

"How could you cheat on me? I was so hot."

reply

Good thread...having just watched all three, three nights in a row, I'd go with 1974, then 1983, then 1980. I thought the cinematography in the first was mind-blowing (good call on the Lynch reference), plus I loved the ending. People are knocking the third, which I can understand, but I really liked the pace it kept (how is was slower than the others) and how much the scenic Yorkshire backdrop was integrated into the plot - it really brought out town/country dialectic in a great way. While I liked the second, it just didn't resonate with me as much. I also didn't like how that one didn't tie into the third at all really. All in all, amazing trilogy. Brits knocked it out of the park.

reply

[deleted]


The third one was definitely the best one to me. It was a little confusing, not the flashbacks so much for me as the whole Piggots dad. I didn't get that until I read the board, but I thought everything came together in the end and the conclusion almost was satisfying. Then 1974, I liked it a lot, but I just didn't get why poor Eddie kept being abused, it drove me crazy. And 1980 was pretty boring. And didn't fit in with one and three as much

"The Hardest thing to do on earth, is live on it."-Buffy Summers

reply

I thought that about 1980 too. I think it would have made more sense if they made 1977, the book is amazing and would have connected everything together. It's such a shame they didn't make it.

reply

I agree with you thao. I rated them in order progressing downward: 9/8/6 on IMBd and 5/4/3 on Netflix.

reply

Jeez, I must be the only one who thought 1980 was the best. Paddy Considine was brilliant.

1. 1980
2. 1974
3. 1983

While I enjoyed all three thoroughly, I'm having a hard time accepting the degree of police corruption to the degree that certain characters are executed right in the bowels of the Yorkshire police headquarters. Didn't seem like there was a single honest cop in the entire three movies. Maybe Considine's character qualifies as such - but he'd be about it.

reply

Nope, you're not alone. I thought 1980 was the best one. The conclusion - "not you, John" - is absolutely haunting. (Shades of "Et tu, Brutus?)

I liked 1974 very much.

Alas, 1983 was rather disappointing.

Visit my film site here:
http://www.notesofafilmfanatic.com/

reply

[deleted]

I'm also in the crowd that thought 1980 was the best. So many leftover elements from the first film came together at the end in such an amazing way. Great writing.

The other two would be a toss up, but if I had to choose I'd go with the second best being 1983 and then 1974. The relationship at the heart of 1974 wasn't believable at all. Then again, neither was the relationship in the last film with the medium. Yeah, like I said, those two were a toss up.

reply

[deleted]

a) 1974
b) 1983
c) 1980

The first film had the biggest impact on me - I think because I was unprepared for (and thus shocked by) the depth of the corruption and the depravity.

I liked how the final film wrapped a lot of things up. Plus there was at least some justice done, and the unrelenting bleakness was relieved just a bit. Once in a while those abducted kids are saved - just ask Elizabeth Smart.

reply

I thought the first one (1974) was by far the best. It had a Lynch feeling to it and an amazing cinematography.
I totally agree with this comment, along with mescaloner's opinion about the strong central character and story arc in the first film.

I thought 1974 was definitely the best, followed by 1980, with 1983 bringing up a weak third.



I need my 1987 DG20 Casio electric guitar set to mandolin, yeah...

reply

I pretty much agree. I'd be hard pressed to choose between the first two films. The first stands out because of my shock at what was going on with the police force, the second due to Paddy Considine's performance (Garfield was very good in the first one too). I did think though that 1983 was several steps behind the first two films. I didn't like the dual protagonists, the role of the medium and most of all, I found the resolution very unsatisfying. I wanted to see the whole edifice of the cops corruption crumble, and all we got was the focus on BJ at the end, a fairly minor character in the scheme of things.

reply

Interesting that so many think so highly of the first installment. I still liked it but actually thought it to be the weakest of the three. For me, it suffered for having such a small scope. And everything escalated a little too quickly for my taste too. I especially found it difficult to buy Eddie and Paula's relationship. 1980 was my favorite - a stronger lead, better paced, truly bringing the level of corruption into focus and brilliantly tying back to 1974. 1983 was a bit messier and exposition heavy but it fills in the gaps so well, I'd rank it very close to 1980.

reply